Human Rights Brief

Volume 10 | Issue 3 Article 2

2003 Attacks from Within: Zimbabwe's Assault on Basic Freedoms through Legislation Jamal Jafari American University Washington College of Law

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, and the International Law Commons

Recommended Citation Jafari, Jamal. "Attacks from Within: Zimbabwe's Assault on Basic Freedoms through Legislation." Human Rights Brief 10, no. 3 (2003): 6-10.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Human Rights Brief by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Jafari: Attacks from Within: Zimbabwe's Assault on Basic Freedoms through

Attacks from Within: Zimbabwe’s Assault on Basic Freedoms through Legislation by Jamal Jafari*

ersonal freedoms in Zimbabwe have disintegrated over the past few years as President Robert Mugabe has com- Ppromised the civil and political rights of citizens to maintain his grip on power. In the face of mounting oppo- sition to his rule, Mugabe has severely restricted the rights of journalists to express themselves freely, the rights of opposi- tion political parties to hold rallies and meetings, and the rights of citizens to assemble freely. These rights are protected under the Constitution of Zimbabwe, as well as international covenants to which Zimbabwe is a party. These restrictions have been codified in two news laws—the Access to Infor- mation and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) of 2002 and the Credit: UN/UNMEE photo by J. Aramburu Public Order and Security Act (POSA) of 2002. Both laws were instituted prior to a contentious presidential race in March 2002 and have allowed Mugabe to solidify his hold on power by subrogating any opposition while claiming to uphold the rule of law. This effort, which assured him an electoral victory despite failing to meet international election standards, will have far-reaching consequences on the rights of Zimbab- weans to assemble, speak, and conduct a free press for years to come. In addition, Zimbabwe’s problems come at a time when the rest of the continent is moving toward democracy and transparency. The failures of Zimbabwe will reflect poorly Robert G. Mugabe, President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, addressing upon pan-African efforts to achieve these goals. the United Nations General Assembly on September 12, 2002.

Background featured a car crash, stated: “This is one way to die. Another President Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe since it gained inde- way is to vote for ZUM. Don’t commit suicide. Vote ZANU- pendence in 1980. After maneuvering to head the largest PF and live.” army that fought against white minority rule, he came to power Mugabe’s hold on power began to crumble in September espousing reconciliation with the white population that had pre- 1999, when the opposition Movement for Democratic Change viously ruled Rhodesia, as Zimbabwe was formerly known. (MDC) was born out of the labor movement. The MDC Mugabe initially attempted to establish a de jure one-party state demonstrated its strength in February 2000 when it mobilized with his ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic an effective campaign to defeat a referendum on a draft Front (ZANU-PF) as the sole legal political party. He did not constitution written by ZANU-PF that would greatly expand succeed, however, and created a de facto one-party state instead. the powers of the president. This was the first defeat ZANU- During the formative stages of Mugabe’s rule, the admin- PF ever suffered at the polls. Four months later, the MDC istration did not tolerate dissent. In the early 1980s Mugabe emerged from a bloody parliamentary election campaign to sent the North Korean-trained Fifth Brigade of the Zimbabwe win almost 50 percent of the elected seats. In the process, National Army to the Matabeleland region of the country, ZANU-PF members killed hundreds of people and tortured where it killed 20,000 people. Matabeleland, a base for many thousands, the vast majority of them MDC members. critics of Mugabe and ZANU-PF, was home of the Ndebele peo- The presidential election was due to be held in less than two ple who were united behind Joshua Nkomo and his Zim- years. ZANU-PF’s efforts to use violence and intimidation failed babwe African People’s Union party (ZAPU), which opposed to defeat the MDC. In subsequent court challenges, the MDC Mugabe’s centralization of power. Nkomo eventually agreed nullified the elections of several ZANU-PF members of Parlia- to a power-sharing agreement in which he would serve as ment after the Zimbabwe High Court ruled that ZANU-PF’s vice president as long as he merged his party with ZANU-PF, heavy-handed campaign tactics created an illegal advantage thus eliminating the only major opposition party. This mas- for the ruling party. Although many judges who ruled against sacre, known in Zimbabwe as the Gukuruhundi, or “the rains ZANU-PF were forced to resign, opposition support continued that cleanse,” set the tone for Mugabe’s response to future to grow. It was clear that the traditional tactic of violent sup- attempts at political opposition. pression of opposition would not be enough to ensure Mugabe’s From the late 1980s until the late 1990s, small political par- re-election. To enhance its candidate’s chances of winning the ties emerged, such as the Zimbabwe Unity Movement (ZUM), presidency, ZANU-PF resorted to instituting new laws in order to contest an occasional parliamentary seat or run a symbolic to limit dissent, free expression, and free assembly. presidential candidate who had no real chance of unseating Mugabe. Even though these parties posed no practical risk to Mugabe due to limited exposure and support, he did not hes- The Public Order and Security Act of 2002 itate to resort to violence and intimidation to ensure that no POSA, which was passed in January 2002, replaced the Law opposition party gained a foothold in Zimbabwean politics. and Order Maintenance Act of 1960 (LOMA), one of the few For example, a ZANU-PF television ad broadcast during the pieces of legislation retained from the Rhodesian era. LOMA 1990 presidential race threatened constituents who did not generally outlined police powers, state security measures, wish to support ZANU-PF. The announcer of the ad, which continued on next page 6 Published by Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law, 2003 1 Human Rights Brief, Vol. 10, Iss. 3 [2003], Art. 2

Zimbabwe, continued from previous page per Daily News, Mr. Mathe commented on reports that police and members of the armed forces were beating civilians in the area after the murder of an Australian tourist. He likened the and the limits of personal freedom as they related to state secu- events to the Matabeleland massacres in the 1980s. The rity. LOMA was considered to be a draconian piece of legis- police interpreted his statement as “causing disaffection lation that served the interests of the white minority. Ironi- amongst members of the Police Force or Defense Forces,” cally, the Rhodesian regime often invoked this statute to arrested him, and released him on bail pending trial. inhibit the revolutionary forces and their supporters who now rule Zimbabwe. Mugabe kept LOMA in place after inde- Effects of the Public Order and Security Act on pendence mainly due to its effectiveness in suppressing dis- Freedom of Assembly sent against the government. The decision to replace LOMA Section 5 of POSA addresses acts of subversion. The lan- came after years of public criticism over its colonial roots and guage of section 5 is so broad, however, that even peaceful the Mugabe regime’s desire to restrict opposition to the gov- protests may be subject to prosecution. Specifically, subsection ernment beyond the boundaries of LOMA. 2(iii) of this act makes “coercing or attempting to coerce the Government” a crime punishable by up to 20 years of impris- Effects of the Public Order and Security Act on onment. “Coercing” is defined as “constraining, compelling Freedom of Expression or restraining” through “boycott, civil disobedience or resis- Although LOMA was generally considered restrictive, tance to any law, whether such resistance is active or passive POSA has maintained, and in some instances expanded, lim- . . . if accompanied by physical force or violence or threat of itations on personal freedom, including freedom of expres- physical force or violence.” Thus, any participant in a rally or sion. POSA retains the provision of LOMA that criminalized a mass stayaway may be subject to prosecution under this insulting the president, although the passage of POSA reduced clause. This would include any participant in a rally that is later the penalty from five years of imprisonment to one. Section attacked by a government-sponsored militia, which occurs 16 of POSA criminalizes the making of virtually any negative with some regularity. comment about the president in his professional or personal Section 17 of POSA, which addresses public violence, has capacity. This section also crimi- been expanded to apply to anyone nalizes any printed or broadcast who “forcibly disturbs the peace, “abusive, indecent, obscene or false Any organizer of a public gathering who security or order of the public . . . statement” directed toward the pres- or invades the rights of other peo- ident. Although there is no inde- fails to seek approval from the state may ple.” On the surface, the objective pendent electronic media within be fined up to $10,000 Zimbabwe dollars of this provision seems to preserve Zimbabwe, virtually any writer at the peace by punishing rioters. A an independent newspaper could (U.S.$179) and imprisoned for up to closer examination reveals that it be arrested for criticizing the pres- six months according to section 24(6). can be applied to anyone who ident. In practice, however, the gov- objects to the operations of the ernment has chosen to prosecute state. For example, Raymond journalists under AIPPA rather than rely on this provision. Majongwe, secretary-general of the Progressive Teacher’s An additional provision of POSA that inhibits the right of Union of Zimbabwe (PTUZ), was twice arrested under sec- free expression is section 15, which prohibits making any false tion 17 while leading a nonviolent national teacher’s strike statements prejudicial to the government, or any oral or in October 2002. Each time, he was arrested for approaching written false statements that may, inter alia, adversely affect teachers at schools and encouraging them to join the strike. Zimbabwean defense or economic interests, or undermine During the first arrest he was badly beaten in police custody public confidence in defense and law enforcement agen- and prevented from seeking medical attention for days. Dur- cies. The determination of what constitutes a “false state- ing the second arrest he was tortured by having electrodes ment” is left up to the executive. This provision not only applied to his genitals and his mouth. The police told him to affects any local or foreign journalist writing about Zim- call off the strike and not to talk to the press. babwe, but also severely hinders human rights groups and In general, POSA strengthens the police force and equips other advocacy organizations that serve as a check on the gov- it with broader powers to inhibit demonstrations. Section 25, ernment. If the press and non-governmental organizations are which regulates public gatherings, has enabled police to stripped of their power to criticize the state, critical debate approve, disapprove, or shut down virtually any public gath- in Zimbabwe will come to a virtual halt. ering at will. Any person who wishes to hold a public gather- Another new clause incorporated into POSA is section 12, ing must provide advance notice to the authorities, who then which addresses causing disaffection among the police forces. have the power to determine the duration, location, and Under this clause, any person who commits an act that may route of the gathering. The authorities may deny any request be construed as attempting to cause the police or defense for a public gathering if they claim it will cause public disor- forces to withhold their loyalty, services, or allegiance, or to der, a breach of the peace, or an obstruction to any thor- commit a breach of discipline, may be fined 20,000 Zim- oughfare. Any organizer of a public gathering who fails to seek babwe dollars (U.S.$357) and imprisoned for up to two years. approval from the state may be fined up to $10,000 Zim- Because most police stations have close ties to government- babwe dollars (U.S.$179) and imprisoned for up to six months sponsored militias and often apply the law selectively, many according to section 24(6). In addition, section 27 gives the opposition supporters who report acts of political violence to police the power to prohibit any gathering within a specific the police are told that the police cannot help MDC members. police district for up to three months. Section 28 provides that According to section 12, any person who makes public state- the organizer of any public gathering who has breached any ments condemning the actions of the police or suggesting that aspect of POSA relating to such gatherings may be held civilly they should uphold the rule of law may be a target for pros- liable for damage that results from the gathering. Further, sec- ecution. For example, MDC official Kenneth Mathe was tion 31 states that any person at a public gathering who arrested and brought before a magistrate in the resort town “engages in disorderly or riotous conduct; or uses threaten- of Victoria Falls on January 24, 2003 for violating section continued on next page 12(a) of POSA. In an interview with the opposition newspa- 7 http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/vol10/iss3/2 2 Jafari: Attacks from Within: Zimbabwe's Assault on Basic Freedoms through

Zimbabwe, continued from previous page

ing, abusive or insulting words; or behaves in a threatening, abusive or insulting manner” may be liable for a fine up to $50,000 Zimbabwe dollars (U.S.$893) and may be impris- oned for up to two years. Police have even required advance notice of political discussions taking place at public places in the capital city of Harare.

Officials have relied on POSA when arresting elected Credit: AFP Photo/Aaron Ufumeli MDC officials. On January 11, 2003, Harare Mayor Elias Mudzuri, his deputy mayor, and several members of the city council were arrested and charged with addressing an illegal gathering under section 25(1) of POSA, which regulates public gatherings that may cause “public disorder; or a breach of the peace; or an obstruction of any thoroughfare.” Accord- ing to the British Broadcasting Corporation, at the time of their arrest, the officials were holding a meeting with residents at the city council building and were discussing municipal issues such as water, sewage, and roads. Because POSA was passed two months before the presi- dential election, the restrictions on public gatherings had a serious effect on the campaign for the presidency. President Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Mugabe addressed roughly 50 rallies during that period and Change (MDC), at a press conference in Harare, criticizing all ZANU-PF rallies were allowed to proceed unhindered. In the ZANU-PF-led government for physically abusing contrast, Morgan Tsvangirai, the head of the MDC and its can- members of his party during a mass stayaway opposing didate for president, managed to hold only eight rallies. The Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe’s human rights MDC secured a court order to prevent the police from inter- record and dictatorship. fering in a rally in February 2002, but cancelled the rally after police refused to provide security in the face of mount- ing threats. In all, the police used POSA to disrupt or prevent 83 MDC rallies between January and March 2002. They often Sections 65 through 77 of AIPPA specify who may be a mass prevented MDC meetings in private homes as well, and dis- media owner, the manner in which he or she must apply for rupted a meeting between Mr. Tsvangirai and diplomats registration, and the manner in which he or she must oper- held at a hotel. The police disrupted several gatherings of the ate in order to retain registration with the Commission. Sec- Zimbabwe Election Support Network, an organization devoted tion 65 provides that all mass media owners must at least be to voter education and free and fair elections, after classify- citizens of Zimbabwe. In addition, all partial owners must be ing the gathering as political and therefore subject to the pro- permanent residents of Zimbabwe. Under section 69, the visions of POSA. Commission may refuse to register any organization that vio- lates the Act and may suspend or nullify registration due to bankruptcy of any owner or membership in a banned orga- The Access to Information and Protection of nization pursuant to section 71. Privacy Act of 2002 In a country where there is little internal capital investment, The Zimbabwean Constitution has never explicitly guar- section 71 severely hampers the ability of news organizations anteed freedom of the press, although it does guarantee free to raise money. In addition, the mandatory registration of jour- expression to all citizens in section 20, which has been inter- nalists amounts to the requirement of approval from the preted to include journalists. Before AIPPA was passed in government to practice as a journalist. In practice, local jour- March 2002, journalists were prevented from publishing infor- nalists are initially granted registration, but renewal by the mation that contained state secrets or could be proven to be Commission is delayed or halted for those who have been par- defamatory. There was no law hindering the ability of journalists ticularly critical of the government. A journalist cannot report to operate, except for a statute regulating electronic media. freely on government activities if he or she is worried about the nullification of his or her registration. Accreditation of Journalists and Mass Media Outlets Journalists are subject to individual registration according AIPPA has drastically changed the work of journalists in to sections 78 through 90 of AIPPA. Under section 79, all jour- Zimbabwe. Among other measures, it has created a Media and nalists must apply to the Commission for registration that must Information Commission (Commission) to oversee the press, be renewed annually. Only Zimbabwean citizens and per- has imposed a strict registration policy on journalists, and has manent residents are eligible to receive this type of accredi- introduced severe penalties for publishing false informa- tation. Section 79(4) stipulates that any foreign reporter may tion. Three members of the Commission are chosen by offi- be accredited for a maximum of 30 days. Therefore, all cials from journalist organizations and three by associations reporters from outside the country must get prior approval of media owners, while the remaining members are chosen from the government and inform it of the subject of their by the minister of information under orders from the presi- work. A foreign media outlet may set up a permanent office dent. The minister has the power to accept or reject any in Zimbabwe, but only with prior approval from the Com- members nominated by journalists and media owners and mission according to section 90. holds the final decision, along with the president, as to who As a result of the passage of section 79, numerous foreign sits on the Commission. journalists have been denied entry into Zimbabwe after their The Commission has the power to register any individual requests for temporary accreditation were denied. Among journalists and all mass media outlets, including newspa- those denied visas were Sally Sara of the Australian Broad- pers, magazines, news services, and any organization that derives revenue from news collection and dissemination. continued on next page 8 Published by Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law, 2003 3 Human Rights Brief, Vol. 10, Iss. 3 [2003], Art. 2

Zimbabwe, continued from previous page every citizen has the “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference, and casting Corporation and David Blair of the British Daily Tele- freedom from interference with his correspondence.” There graph who was immediately deported upon arrival. Further, are exceptions to this right. In Section 20(2)(a), exceptions the government alleges that it accredited 580 journalists are made in the interest of “defence, public safety, public before the March 2002 presidential election, but a private order, the economic interests of the State, public morality or media watchdog group, the Media Institute of Southern public health.” AIPPA goes one step further, however, and Africa, suggests that number is closer to 72. restricts freedom of expression on the basis of accuracy of Local reporters have been most affected by the registration information as perceived by the state. This is clearly a limi- policy. For example, Fanuel Jongwe, a senior reporter for the tation the Constitution did not intend, and is currently being Daily News, was arrested on January 27, 2003 in the town of debated by the courts. Zvishavane along with five foreigners and charged under In addition, the provisions of AIPPA outlined above vio- section 79 of AIPPA, which prohibits practicing journalism late Zimbabwe’s obligations under international law. Article without a license from the Commission. The five foreigners, 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights reported to be members of the World Lutheran Foundation (ICCPR), to which Zimbabwe is a state party, guarantees (WLF), were charged under sec- freedom of expression, including tion 72, which prohibits running a “freedom to seek, receive and media outlet without authorization. In April 2002, Geoff Nyarota, the editor-in- impart information and ideas of all Jongwe stated that he had been kinds, regardless of frontiers, invited to cover the WLF’s activi- chief of the Daily News, was arrested either orally, in writing or in print, ties as a development organization under section 80 after publishing a story in the form of art, or through any in the area. The group was later other media of his choice.” The released after police confiscated a accusing the Registrar General of Elections only restrictions that may be laptop, notebooks, cameras, and lit- of releasing contradictory information to imposed are those that are pro- erature. vided for by law and aim to protect different media outlets concerning the the rights or reputations of oth- Effects of the Access to Information results of the presidential election. ers, national security, public order, and Protection of Privacy Act on public health, or morals. Any Freedom of Expression restriction must be justified as Possibly more troubling to journalists than the accredita- “necessary” for achieving one of these purposes. General tion issue are the new restrictions on freedom of expression Comment 10, which elaborates on the implementation of Arti- imposed by AIPPA. Section 64, entitled “Abuse of Freedom of cle 19, is clear that a state party may impose restrictions on Expression,” criminalizes usage of mass media outlets to com- the right to freedom of expression only if such restrictions do mit a criminal offense or publish a false record. Anyone who not jeopardize the right itself. violates this section may be fined up to $100,000 Zimbabwe AIPPA’s requirement that journalists provide accurate dollars (U.S.$1786) and may be sentenced to up to two years information is in violation of Zimbabwe’s international oblig- in jail. While many countries hold journalists civilly liable for ations. Although most international bodies recognize some defamation, criminal liability serves to stifle the free expres- restrictions on press freedom to protect national security, AIP- sion of information due to the threat of imprisonment. PA’s prohibition against publishing false information regard- Individual journalists are also criminally liable from pub- less of content surpasses acceptable international norms. By lishing false information under section 80, which provides making journalists criminally liable for their reports, AIPPA penalties if a journalist “falsifies or fabricates information, pub- has trampled on internationally recognized components of lishes falsehoods . . . or contravenes any of the provisions” of a free press by imposing illegitimate restrictions on journal- AIPPA. The definition of a falsehood is left up to the Com- ists’ right to freedom of expression. Further, the restrictions mission and the minister of information. The penalties for vio- on the press not only inhibit journalists’ right to impart lating this section are up to a $100,000 Zimbabwe dollars information, but they also jeopardize the public’s right to (U.S.$1786) fine and up to two years in jail. receive information. Unless AIPPA is amended, a truly free These sections of AIPPA have been used repeatedly to word may never again be published in Zimbabwe, in turn sti- detain journalists who publish stories that criticize the gov- fling public debate among Zimbabweans. ernment. In April 2002, Geoff Nyarota, the editor-in-chief of Zimbabwe also has obligations as a state party to the the Daily News, was arrested under section 80 after publish- African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR). ing a story accusing the Registrar General of Elections of Article 9 states that “every individual shall have the right to releasing contradictory information to different media out- receive information,” and “every person shall have the right lets concerning the results of the presidential election. In his to express and disseminate his opinions within the law.” subsequent legal challenge, Nyarota was remanded to prison AIPPA certainly violates this provision by withholding regis- until early 2003 while the government considers whether tration from some independent journalists and prosecuting section 80 of the AIPPA violates section 20 of the Constitu- others for publishing allegedly false information. Imposing tion, which guarantees freedom of expression. In total, at least such limitations violates the Constitution, making its legal 16 journalists were arrested and charged under section 80 application dubious. In addition, AIPPA contradicts the spirit from the time of the presidential election until early July 2002. of Article 9 of the ACHPR. AIPPA also contradicts nearly every provision of the Wind- hoek Declaration (Declaration) (1991) governing freedom Zimbabwe’s Responsibilities under the Zimbabwean of the press in Africa. Zimbabwe signed this document, which Constitution and International Law was drafted during the General Conference of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in 1989 and AIPPA’s Compliance with the Constitution and later passed by the UN General Assembly. The Declaration International Law establishes that a free press is essential to a functioning AIPPA has sparked fierce constitutional debate within democracy and every effort should be taken to remove gov- Zimbabwe. Section 20 of the Constitution maintains that continued on next page 9 http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/vol10/iss3/2 4 Jafari: Attacks from Within: Zimbabwe's Assault on Basic Freedoms through

Zimbabwe, continued from previous page any public assembly (even gatherings in private homes), prosecute any person for a perceived threat or insult to the government, prevent journalists from expressing themselves, ernment restrictions on the press, establish constitutional and prosecute journalists who disseminate information con- guarantees of press freedom, and protect journalists from- trary to the official version of events. While sections of these prohibitions on their freedom of expression. Specifically, the acts are being challenged in court, they represent a trend by Declaration states that “African States should be encouraged Mugabe and the government of Zimbabwe to put self-preser- to provide constitutional guarantees of freedom of the vation before the rights of the people. press ....” Additionally, the Declaration asserts that “African These pieces of legislation are symptomatic of the larger Governments that have jailed journalists for their profes- problem of Mugabe’s autocracy and disregard for the needs sional activities should free them immediately.” of the Zimbabwean people. At age 79 and a hardened veteran These documents represent the will of Africa and the will of many physical and political battles, it is unlikely that he will of the world in allowing free speech. By preventing free have a change of heart and loosen his grip on basic freedoms. access to information through the restrictions in AIPPA, As internal dissent is suppressed, the key to the reinstatement Zimbabwe is turning its back on regional and international of these rights lies within the international community, start- standards to which it previously agreed to adhere. Through- ing with Zimbabwe’s neighbors. As Zimbabwe dwindles deeper out its current crisis, Zimbabwe has repeatedly said that in its political and economic problems it relies more on African problems demand African solutions, but this argument international organizations such as the Commonwealth, an holds little weight considering the disrespect Mugabe has organization composed mainly of Britain and its former shown to standards of free speech outlined by the ACHPR. colonies, and the Southern African Development Community (SADC). To date, SADC has offered mild criticism, and the POSA’s Compliance with the Constitution and Commonwealth renewed its suspension of Zimbabwe for a sec- International Law ond year due to gross neglect of human rights. Despite Zimbabwe has contravened sections of its own Constitution mounting criticism, African powers such as South Africa and and provisions of international law by passing and imple- Nigeria have shielded Zimbabwe from further action by the menting POSA. Section 21 of the Constitution guarantees the Commonwealth while SADC has taken little significant action. right to assembly and does not provide for the sweeping South African President Thabo Mbeki recently suffered a authority POSA gives to officers of the state to restrict such setback to his “quiet diplomacy” efforts with the Mugabe gatherings. Further, Section 20 provides for freedom of regime. Days after using POSA to arrest MDC Vice Presi- expression and makes exceptions only for the protection of dent Gibson Sibanda for his involvement in leading success- national security, defamation, and other circumstances relat- ful mass stayaways protesting the government, Minister of Jus- ing to the general public welfare. POSA’s restrictions on tice Patrick Chinamasa announced that neither POSA nor freedom of assembly, including breaking up private meetings AIPPA would be amended in any way because the government and outlawing all public assembly in certain areas for up to is “under siege” from the MDC. The government had con- three months certainly contradict the Constitution, even if sidered the idea of amending POSA and AIPPA as a way of state security is considered. The assembly itself should always easing sanctions and gaining favor among international bod- be guaranteed even if the content of the discussions at cer- ies, but eventually abandoned this plan. tain gatherings may be regulated, in extreme circumstances, The test of Africa’s future begins with Zimbabwe. If the in the interests of security. ideals of the African Charter are going to be realized, ushering POSA also contradicts many provisions of the ICCPR. Arti- in an era of democracy and peaceful transfer of power cle 21 guarantees the right of peaceful assembly and only through free and fair elections, Zimbabwe must be used as provides for exceptions for situations “necessary in a democ- a model. African leaders must join the international call for ratic society in the interests of national security or public “smart” sanctions targeted at Zimbabwe’s leadership, not its safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals suffering population. The Commonwealth and SADC should or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” Pre- strip Zimbabwe of any power within their organizations until venting peaceful demonstrations as stipulated under POSA can- a legitimate election has been held. Most importantly, all not be considered necessary in a democratic society. These nations should condemn the restriction of basic rights and internationally recognized provisions, if implemented, would the establishment of an autocracy where a democracy once allow Zimbabweans of all political persuasions to assemble existed. If all nations, especially African nations, condemn peacefully. As POSA is written, this is not possible. Mugabe’s tactics, he might be convinced to leave office and Article 11 of the ACHPR states that every individual shall hand over power to a more moderate government. Only have the right of free assembly provided he abides by the law. then can Zimbabweans hope to enjoy the rights guaranteed As provisions of POSA itself may be unconstitutional, certain to them by their Constitution and the laws of humanity. provisions may violate Article 11 regarding to peaceful assem- bly. These provisions represent the will of Africa to protect *Jamal Jafari is a J.D. candidate at the Washington College of peaceful assembly. POSA’s restrictions on assembly and crit- Law and a staff writer for the Human Rights Brief. icism of the president contradict the will of Zimbabwe’s neighbors and the previous will of Zimbabwe itself.

Conclusion POSA and AIPPA represent an assault on the freedoms of the Zimbabwean people guaranteed to them under the ICCPR, the ACHPR, and their own Constitution. A careful examination of both acts reveals that they were designed in part to aid the government during the presidential election and were used afterward to silence opposition voices and journalists in the independent media. Unchallenged, they cre- ate a virtual police state in which the government can deny 10 Published by Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law, 2003 5